ArticleBMC public health2010
Determinants of public trust in complementary and alternative medicine.
Article in BMC public health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- What shapes trust in healthcare? Socio-economic and structural determinants of trust in formal and traditional health providers across 111 countries.SSM - population health · 2026Article
- Bridging the epistemic gap: a psychological acceptance model for the cross-cultural health communication of traditional Chinese medicine.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Why some embrace and others hesitate? A behavioral analysis of insomnia sufferers' engagement with acupuncture treatment.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
- Fifty Years of Trust Research in Health Care: A Synthetic Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2023Article
- Forty years after Alma-Ata: how people trust primary health care?BMC public health · 2020Article
- Predictors of the use and approval of CAM: results from the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS).BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Psychometric properties of primary health care trust questionnaire.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Characterizing Websites That Provide Information About Complementary and Integrative Health: Systematic Search and Evaluation of Five Domains.Interactive journal of medical research · 2018Article
- Indicators for Medical Mistrust in Healthcare-A Review and Standpoint from Southeast Asia.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2017Review
- Core and Complementary Chiropractic: Lowering Barriers to Patient Utilization of Services.Journal of chiropractic humanities · 2016Article
- Social network bridging potential and the use of complementary and alternative medicine in later life.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the Netherlands, public trust in conventional medicine is relatively high. There is reason to believe that public trust in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is rated lower. The aim of this study is to gain insight into public trust in CAM and the determinants that lie at the root of it. We hypothesized that public trust in CAM is related to (perceived) institutional guarantees, media information on CAM, information from people's social network, personal experiences, the role of general practitioners (GPs) and trust in conventional medicine.
methodsA postal questionnaire on public trust in CAM was mailed to 1358 members of the Health Care Consumer Panel. 65% of the questionnaires were returned. Data were analysed using frequencies, ANOVA, post hoc testing and linear regression analyses.
resultsIn the total sample, the level of public trust in CAM was a 5.05 on average on a scale of 1-10. 40.7% was CAM user (current or past) and displayed significantly higher levels of trust toward CAM than CAM non users. In the total sample, public trust in CAM was related to institutional guarantees, negative media information, positive and negative information reported by their social network and people's personal experiences with CAM. For non users, trust is mostly associated with institutional guarantees. For users, personal experiences are most important. For both users and non users, trust levels in CAM are affected by negative media information. Public trust in CAM is for CAM users related to positive information and for non users to negative information from their network.
conclusionsIn the Netherlands, CAM is trusted less than conventional medicine. The hypotheses on institutional guarantees, media information, information from the network and people's personal experiences are confirmed by our study for the total sample, CAM non users and users. The other hypotheses are rejected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.